Kenryoku_Maxis said:
silentmac said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
silentmac said:
@Kenryoku
What are you talking about? IGN is one of the most Wii friendly gaming publications there is. Are you saying you think that Gamespot, 1up, Giantbomb, Game Informer, Game Pro etc. are less Wii friendly?
Hell, even Gametrailers and Nintendo Power are more critical of Wii games than IGN most of the time.
Personally, I think IGN is well balanced. There are some areas where Nintendo is unparalleled but there are plenty of others where they are lagging behind the industry.
|
I would definitely disagree. Look at their reviews of games aside from 'major' titles (aka Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros). You'll be hard pressed to find a game over 8.5. The majority of the games they review over that number are Virtual Console games that everyone knows are good. And they throw a LOT of opinions around. Mostly pinging the system and its 'innovation'. But there's been some times when they even cite games on the 360 as examples (clearly showing that they are comparing Wii games to 360 games).
|
Ok well what site or magazine is less biased than IGN then? I have seen a ton of people complain that they are too lenient on Wii games...
They score third party games that are geared toward their reader's demographic pretty high IMO.. For instance:
The Conduit 8.6
Mad World 9.0
Okami 9.0
Zack & Wiki 9.0
RE4: 9.0
PES 2k8 8.6
etc.
Most people instantly give Nintendo first party titles 9.0 or better and sometimes this is deserved and sometimes it isn't. Now most sites also tend to over rate games if they have great visual on the HD consoles as well...
I agree they could be more subjective with their reviews but honestly they are far more Wii friendly than just about any other gaming publication.
|
Exactly. Wii games 'that are geared toward their reader's demographic'. In other words, they upscore the games they think the readers like and ignore/downscore the others. Now yes, there's some blatant anti-Nintendo sites out there. But IGN isn't without its faults and bias is my main point. And on the whole, I'm someone who thinks you shouldn't listen to a reviewer to be your judge of wither to buy a game anyway. With so many forms of media, previews and youtube/gametrailers now adays, there's no need to read a 2-4 page bias and opinionated summary of a game (which the reviewer never finished in the first place).
|
So....because WSR is geared toward the "casuals" and not the "reader's demographic", and since WSR is probably really fun for the "casuals"...this game should be rate 90 or higher? I think that's what you're trying to say....and that would mean all the CRAP (I mean the literal crap on the system, like Game Party) on the Wii should be rated extremely high, because those games target the "casuals" and are really fun to them (why else did Carnival Games sell like 3 million?), and not the "reader's demographic".
Do you see the fault in that logic? There has to be some standard, otherwise Mario and Sonic should be scored in league with MGS4 and Bioshock. You can't call "bias" just because they scored differently than how you feel....or I'll say that all review sites are PS3 biased because they scored Haze low. Haze wasn't a game for "gamers", it was game for people who only enjoy FPSs with broken controls and what we would consider cheesy storylines. To those people, that game was a 10/10, so if you didn't score it that way, you are biased
